Employer painted the surface of the dock at one of its rides with a compound
containing the hazardous substance Styrene that is released into the air as
a gas or vapor for approximately one hour after the compound is applied. Employees
reported a strong odor and had symptoms consistent with excessive exposure to
Styrene. Employer did not monitor the area for exposure to Styrene when the
employees became ill. The Division cited Employer under section 5155(e)(1) for
failure to monitor. The duty to monitor arises when "it is reasonable to
suspect that employees may be exposed to concentrations of airborne contaminants
in excess of the PELs." The Board held that the presence of Styrene in
the compound, the manner and extent of its use and the employees symptoms
that were consistent with Styrene exposure in excess of PELs, raised reasonable
suspicion of excessive exposure. Since Employer failed to monitor for Styrene
when apprised of the reasonable suspicion, the general violation and civil penalty
were upheld. The ALJ's credibility determinations, based in part on witness
demeanor, were not disturbed (Garza 3 C 3rd 312, 319). The safety order is not
unenforceably vague.